Yet another lie from Big Dog

Big Dog posts, Big Dog lies…

I can’t speak for him but any person who wishes we get attackd again should be sent to Gitmo, oh wait, the SCOTUS said we had to release people from there.

Um, no. The Supreme Court has not issued a ruling that requires any detainee to be released from Guantanamo. What the Court did rule is that detainees have the right to challenge their detention. But of course, Dogmeat has never let little things like facts stand in the way of a good rant.

Notice, too, that in the tiny, cramped space that is Big Dog’s “mind”, merely holding an opinion is a crime deserving of imprisonment. This is no surprise, of course… Big Dog has also informed the world, in all seriousness, that anyone who disagrees with him deserves to die.

Expect more lies and distortions from Big Dog. It is, after all, the one thing he knows how to do.

UPDATE 06/24/08 7:45 AM EDT: The only response Big Dog can imagine is to repeat his lie:

The ruling by the SCOTUS means more people will have to be released.

Again, this is false. Nothing in the Supreme Court’s recent ruling requires that any detainee be released.

Note that the US government has released dozens of detainees from Guantanamo, not one of which were released as a result of a habeas corpus hearing. Once again, Dogmeat refuses to allow any facts to seep in and contaminate his carefully guarded ignorance.

UPDATE 06/24/08 12:52 PM EDT: To no one’s surprise, Big Dog chooses to advertise his ignorance:

Since when does habeas corpus apply to non citizens who are not in our country.

Dogmeat hasn’t read the ruling. If he had, he would know the answer.

Since the government will not be able to bring some of them to court or will not be able to present evidence because of the classification some of these people will have to be released.

Dogmeat provides no factual evidence for either assertion. We are supposed to believe it BECAUSE! BIG DOG! SAYS! SO!

The SCOTUS did not order their release but as a result of the ruling some of them will have to be released.

Dozens of detainees have already been released — and not one of them were released because of a habeas corpus hearing. Dogmeat, of course, is studiously ignoring this fact. It’s so much easier to invent a fantasy world and argue from there…

UPDATE 06/25/08 7:12 AM EDT: Big Dog continues to unleash a torrent of unsupported assertions in place of fact-based argument…

I read the Supreme Court ruling as well as the dissenting opinion, I agree with them and not the liberals who think we should use other country’s laws to make rulings.

Where in the majority ruling in Boumediene is it stated that the Court should use other country’s laws to make rulings? Big Dog doesn’t say.

Anything CIVIL pertains to CITIZENS of a country. People who are not citizens and who are not here in some legal capacity have no civil rights or liberties.

Are there specific court rulings or case law that supports this claim? Big Dog doesn’t say.

Big Dog is using a typical tactic of the wingnut fringe: throw a lot of shit against the wall in the hope that some of it will stick. What this tells us is that Big Dog doesn’t actually have a cogent, fact-based argument.

UPDATE 06/25/08 8:50 AM EDT: Translating from BigDogese:

Notice that this sentence DOES NOT state they used foreign law in this decision. The liberal minority views that method as appropriate. I give less credence to them because of it with regard to many cases.

Translation: Big Dog didn’t actually read the majority opinion in Boumediene, and couldn’t have understood the legal reasoning if he had—so he mumbles something about “liberals” and “foreign law” and pretends he’s made a rational argument.

The definition of Civil:

1 a: of or relating to citizens b: of or relating to the state or its citizenry [emphasis mine]

Therefore civil anything applies to citizens. The definition spells it out, no case law is required to figure that out.

Translation: Big Dog can use a dictionary, just like a big boy! Whoopee! Of course, he still doesn’t know how the majority reached its conclusions in Boumediene, and he still cannot make a rational argument based on the facts of the case. His precious ignorance is still intact.

UPDATE 06/25/08 12:42 PM EDT: Here’s a surprise (not) — Big Dog can’t stand an actual discussion. He has deleted all but one of the trackbacks I’ve sent to his post. Apparently, he’s afraid to let his readers see that someone actually pointed out the lack of factual underpinnings for his claims.

Intellectual cowardice is a hallmark of the wingnut fringe. How lucky we are to have living examples like Big Dog walking among us!